Guess we'll have to learn the Navajo language and get the Navajo “Windtalkers” back in action, maybe come up with our own secret radio stations....

I have a friend who was raised by her grandparents in the original Navajo traditions. Very fascinating...

It's also interesting how these threads sprout little thread legs
and go wandering off into the oddest of places...

Click to expand...

It's called the "Fairness Doctrine" but what is fair about it? They are just mad because all of their liberal shows have such small audiences. I don't have a problem with there being Liberal shows (I actually used to listen to them when I had Satellite Radio, but to try and take away anyone else's shows because no one is interested in theirs is just rediculous. It's a spitefull tactic. Like saying "if we can't have it we'll make sure no one else can. I hope it fails to pass. We don't want this country's airwaves under leftest control like in Eastern Europe. I really enjoyed the last two paragraphs of the article. Well said.

It's called the "Fairness Doctrine" but what is fair about it? I really enjoyed the last two paragraphs of the article. Well said.

Click to expand...

Arrow,
I agree with you wholeheartedly on the article.

!!!Sore spot for me!!!

Liberal Democrats make up the majority of my family and my husband's family. So consequently, we don't discuss politics with them because rational conversations are impossible. It's either their way or the highway, which I find totally preposterous and due to certain events, I don't even
see some of them any more when they come into town -

When some of these folks have come to visit we've been
ready to pull our hair out after the first hour, because everything becomes political...

We can't take them out to dinner at a "chain restaurant" because chain restaurants represent "evil corporations"...
WTF!!!???!!!

We don't drive a Prius (sp?) yet, so they won't ride in our vehicles...

And don't you know you're only supposed to flush once a week!!??!!
(Shades of Cheryl Crow again)!!!

We can't run the swamp cooler when they're here in the summer because that's too much of a waste of energy...

When our boy was about 10 he used the word "retarded" rather than "mentally challenged" and one of them slapped him... He was 10!! There are adults who still use this term!!
I could add to the list but I won't...

So in a certain way, the article you posted doesn't surprise me in the least 1.

Limbaugh and Hannity are conservatives? They support Bush and the neocons. Nation building and trillion dollar deficits are not conservative ideas. Bush has supported more gun control than Clinton. You are just plain stupid. Have you ever read a book? Do you know what the federal reserve is? You are ignorant. Vote Ron Paul!

1st: George Soros
The article holds up this man in relation to the info presented but mostly what you hear about Mr. Soros is either glowing acculades from one political side or scorn and venom from the other side. What I tend to rarely hear is the who and what of Mr. Soros. He's made his vast fortune by trading in money or in order words he's hedged that one currency will go up and other currency will go down. His most noted trade came on Sept. 16, 1992' when he made over $1bil on what is now called Black Wednesday when he forced the British Conservative gov't to withdraw the British Pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Many say he broke the Bank of England in some respect.

Now I'm no fan of the Bank of England or the US Federal Reserve Bank or Soros for that matter but I really question the motive of Mr. Soros because of his financial dealing in commoditized trading of currencies. Soros was a huge critic of the Iraq invasion but a not very common known was that Saddam and his cronies were on the verge of breaking a long held rule of economics and that is all oil globally will be traded in either London or New York and done so using Dollars for payment. Saddam was moving to break that practice and begin a trading market for oil and using the Euro as a means of payment. If successful it would have so undermined the US dollar globally that we would be having real serious economic problems so it's and interesting thought in light of the invasion but lest we forget it was to find WMD uh wait I mean free the oppressed peoples of Iraq. Ironically the Iranians are toying as we speak with the same thing as Saddam was trying to do and when the first hints last year of it leaking out, almost to the day we started hearing about Iran's Nuke program. Iran probably does have a nuke program or trying it's best to get one after seeing what happened to Saddam.

My question about Mr. Soros has to do with motive and was that motive based on some altruistic principle of freedom as he states or was it just filthy lucer as he had hedged heavily in the Euro verses the US dollar? Sorry, but the filthy lucer just seems to hold far more sway with me that he's come to Jesus on freedom.

2nd: On the fairness doctrine. I've heard the number of radio personalities talk on this and it being the end of the world as we know it and if passed as some have proposed, it would vastly change the landscape of radio for sure. Now I hate commerical radio where you either get the talking heads and its fun at first but it wears thin for me after a while or the music which IMO is 4 chord crap churned out by marketeers who have many convinced this is really what they want to hear and need to hear. So in otherwords, you could blow commercial radio from the planet and I'd shed no tears as I've got internet radio (privateers) and other internet means to get my musical kicks.

As for the Fairness Doctrine limiting the so-called conservative message from the masses so to speak. I live in a large metropolitian area where talk radio is very big and I mean big but the % of the total radio audience of this area who listen to talk with any consistancy is only 15%. Yeah a whopping 15% and I happen to get that number from a talkshow host locally talking about the market and other issues that related to advertising. Are those waving the Fairness Doctrine flag really telling me that they are afraid of at best 15% of the people our there who just happen to be listening to the commercial radio? Throw that question at them next time they wave that flag.

If the Fairness Doctrine passes (I don't think it will) it will spin cycle through the Congressional compromise wash and a watered down version of itself will emerge that will give one side the ability to tell it's followers we've muzzled the conservative talkies once and for all while the so-called conservative types in Congress will also be able to boast of victory in protecting freedom and liberty. I call the compromise process Mutually Assured Victory (MAV) a kind of play on the coldwar MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) because in the end they both want to be able to jerk our chains with smoke and mirrors to justify our vote to them and our belief that their Godhead over us is necessary to our own survival as a species. In the end, like the so-called McCain/Feingold Act was supposed to once and for all take big money out of politics but look at it today and tell me it's so. What they cheer and what it is are most often 2 completely different things.

Smoke and Mirrors, nothing but Smoke and Mirrors. What's the difference between the armed robber and the gov't elected official? At least the armed robber is honest and man enough to be the one in your face with the gun and the rules allow you to fight back and even kill him if necessary. But have a majority group of people elect him and if you dare even think of touching him you're a traitor or they just outright kill you without any questions posed. It all boils down to that! No wonder we learn by each day that more of our elected officials are really crooks than honest and principled folk!

1st: George Soros
The article holds up this man in relation to the info presented but mostly what you hear about Mr. Soros is either glowing acculades from one political side or scorn and venom from the other side. What I tend to rarely hear is the who and what of Mr. Soros. He's made his vast fortune by trading in money or in order words he's hedged that one currency will go up and other currency will go down. His most noted trade came on Sept. 16, 1992' when he made over $1bil on what is now called Black Wednesday when he forced the British Conservative gov't to withdraw the British Pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Many say he broke the Bank of England in some respect.

Now I'm no fan of the Bank of England or the US Federal Reserve Bank or Soros for that matter but I really question the motive of Mr. Soros because of his financial dealing in commoditized trading of currencies. Soros was a huge critic of the Iraq invasion but a not very common known was that Saddam and his cronies were on the verge of breaking a long held rule of economics and that is all oil globally will be traded in either London or New York and done so using Dollars for payment. Saddam was moving to break that practice and begin a trading market for oil and using the Euro as a means of payment. If successful it would have so undermined the US dollar globally that we would be having real serious economic problems so it's and interesting thought in light of the invasion but lest we forget it was to find WMD uh wait I mean free the oppressed peoples of Iraq. Ironically the Iranians are toying as we speak with the same thing as Saddam was trying to do and when the first hints last year of it leaking out, almost to the day we started hearing about Iran's Nuke program. Iran probably does have a nuke program or trying it's best to get one after seeing what happened to Saddam.

My question about Mr. Soros has to do with motive and was that motive based on some altruistic principle of freedom as he states or was it just filthy lucer as he had hedged heavily in the Euro verses the US dollar? Sorry, but the filthy lucer just seems to hold far more sway with me that he's come to Jesus on freedom.

2nd: On the fairness doctrine. I've heard the number of radio personalities talk on this and it being the end of the world as we know it and if passed as some have proposed, it would vastly change the landscape of radio for sure. Now I hate commerical radio where you either get the talking heads and its fun at first but it wears thin for me after a while or the music which IMO is 4 chord crap churned out by marketeers who have many convinced this is really what they want to hear and need to hear. So in otherwords, you could blow commercial radio from the planet and I'd shed no tears as I've got internet radio (privateers) and other internet means to get my musical kicks.

As for the Fairness Doctrine limiting the so-called conservative message from the masses so to speak. I live in a large metropolitian area where talk radio is very big and I mean big but the % of the total radio audience of this area who listen to talk with any consistancy is only 15%. Yeah a whopping 15% and I happen to get that number from a talkshow host locally talking about the market and other issues that related to advertising. Are those waving the Fairness Doctrine flag really telling me that they are afraid of at best 15% of the people our there who just happen to be listening to the commercial radio? Throw that question at them next time they wave that flag.

If the Fairness Doctrine passes (I don't think it will) it will spin cycle through the Congressional compromise wash and a watered down version of itself will emerge that will give one side the ability to tell it's followers we've muzzled the conservative talkies once and for all while the so-called conservative types in Congress will also be able to boast of victory in protecting freedom and liberty. I call the compromise process Mutually Assured Victory (MAV) a kind of play on the coldwar MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) because in the end they both want to be able to jerk our chains with smoke and mirrors to justify our vote to them and our belief that their Godhead over us is necessary to our own survival as a species. In the end, like the so-called McCain/Feingold Act was supposed to once and for all take big money out of politics but look at it today and tell me it's so. What they cheer and what it is are most often 2 completely different things.

Smoke and Mirrors, nothing but Smoke and Mirrors. What's the difference between the armed robber and the gov't elected official? At least the armed robber is honest and man enough to be the one in your face with the gun and the rules allow you to fight back and even kill him if necessary. But have a majority group of people elect him and if you dare even think of touching him you're a traitor or they just outright kill you without any questions posed. It all boils down to that! No wonder we learn by each day that more of our elected officials are really crooks than honest and principled folk!